2. Of your articles or contributions to D&D Wiki, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A:

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A:

Discussion

Support

Personal feelings aside, I feel once you find someone who has shown themselves to be qualified to be an admin on here, then unless they specifically do something that goes against that grain that you should allow them as much leeway as possible when they are unable to contribute. I, obviously, have had long periods where access to the internet has not been available due to schooling, moving, etc, yet, I still try to take the time to come here and show my support. So I support keeping Sam as an admin, unless of course he doesn't want it. --Calidore Chase 10:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending an explanation, I can't in good conscience call for a user to be demoted for no other reason than they've not made an edit for six months. Let's here from Sam Kay himself (or alternatively: show that he can't or won't be reached) before we remove his adminship. Changed to Oppose. JazzMan 22:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

I feel that if someone has not contributed in over six months then they are far removed from D&D Wiki and far removed from the community. As such they do not exemplify admin qualities. --Green Dragon 17:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sam is a nice guy. I know this is just process, put up so he be formally released as admin. Whatever... I don't have to like the process. I don't have to like Sam. I don't have to participate either. But I think this is what Sam would want too. ...Sam is a nice guy. So I oppose this motion. Sam Kay should not become an admin. --Jay Freedman 07:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has this to say: "Administrators may become inactive for a period of time, or may retire altogether. In these instances, as noted on the Perennial Proposals page, consensus has been that they will retain their rights unless they specifically request to have them removed." As far as I know DanDwiki follows Wikipedia's policies (unless otherwise noted). Since Sam Kay hasn't said he wants to step down (as far as I know), I think we should consider him "retired", but let him retain admin rights. --Badger 00:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I never actually read that before. The text from the RfA page is used and then D&D Wiki comes foremost. Unfortunately this method of adminship removal has already been done to another (Requests for Adminship/Pz.Az.04Maus) and therefore is acceptable on D&D Wiki. Or if it really a point of contention then it should be discussed on Talk:Requests for Adminship. --Green Dragon 18:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As Sam Kay has just signed back on to resign formally, this is a moot point now. I'm officially changing my vote from Support to Oppose. I'll change the numbers accordingly. However, we should clear up what constitutes "long enough" for adminship to be removed. You know me (or maybe you don't), I like to know all the nitsy little details about stuff like this. --Badger 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I still don't like the idea of nominating someone, without apparent attempt to contact them, simply for not editing for X amount of time. However, the user has resigned, so this is now just a formality. JazzMan 05:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sam Kay has always created top-quality content. I say the same about Calidore Chase, who also has been absent or near-absent for long lengths of time but comes back. Unless Sam Kay responds and my thoughts change, I am neutral here. Hooper talk contribs email 05:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)